About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN2 6
CSPAN 4
KQED (PBS) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
WETA 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
walls would hurt u.s. diplomacy. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey, rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of americ
. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of
go on and on. nato expansion. all the things taken for granted but not in initiative. they're members of congress on capitol hill who change the world in a very meaningful way and that's still an opportunity if we recognize we need to care about. sorry for that little speech. >> how do we know kind of the counterterrorism, is very much her? [inaudible] >> the question is how do we know when we've won? >> were in no danger of women anytime soon. this has become a sugarless because it's a fair question obviously. what you measure for success and how do we know when we stopped, and that we are so far away from that now a more further away than when this president took office in the policies he's recommending will take us further and further from that because until we can start measuring the hectares covered by al qaeda affiliate, i guarantee you a question of whether we've won or not is nonoperative and right now the measurement is on the increase rather than decrease. so it's a fair question, but we need to recognize where we are in history. this is more like stalingrad 1943. hopefully
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
the french from being able to come into a country. they need to be able to stop nato from coming into countries on the continent. europe would not allow other foreigners to do this in europe. why would the africans allow this? they should not allow foreigners who colonized the bus and insulate us in the past to do this. these are our enemies. what is the true motive of the french for coming into mali? it is certainly not because they care. they are former colonial masters, people that enslaved us. these are our enemies. what is the reason they have come? certainly not because they care. guest: i think we are in agreement that most people -- the u.s. administration, the state department has noted in a statement that general ham said earlier also, everybody would like this to be an african-led solution. it's the only way to go ahead. unfortunately, although many of the african countries talk a great deal about getting involved, with the exception of a few. niger, i mentioned earlier. morocco has been leading on this, raising awareness on this issue for some time. mali, a year-and-a
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
to the placement of pay ttriot missiles. >> reporter: the turkish government asked nato to place the missiles along the border of syria to deter any threat of the ballistic attacks, but the turkish group opposed them to operate the patriots. friday's suicide bombing was not the first time that western diplomatic areas have been attacked in turkey. in 1993 al qaeda killed scores of people as well as the consko late. and in istanbul six people were killed there as people fought to protect the building. the security measures work. twice in six years attackers have failed to break into u.s. diplomatic missions in turkey, but that is due in large part to turkish guards who lost their lives as the first line of protection. wolf? >> ivan watson, thank you. let's get a closer look at the united states embassy right now, and cnn's tom foreman is joining us. tom, show us how the em embassy is laid out in ankara. >> well, ankara is the second largest city in turkey, and the capital, and if you take the largest metro area, it is home of the government, and the u.s. embassy in the middle of everything with the
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)